She then described AR-15s as “weapons of mass destruction” and made clear her position that they should be banned from civilian ownership:

This is what I came to expect from victim disarmers a long, long time ago. She is too stupid to realize that “weapons of mass destruction” are actually a thing. And semiautomatic rifles aren’t WMD.

Let’s say she manages to pass a ban on AR-pattern rifles. How will she implement it? How is she going to bell that cat will Abrams lead the stack on confiscation raids, or leave your cops to die for your megalomaniacal dream?

Maybe Abrams simply thinks (hope? dream?) Georgians will be more compliant than Californians, New Yorkers, Connecticut(ians?). Heck, Vermont couldn’t get folks to turn in more than two bump-fire stocks in the entire state.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)

Yeah, I’ll come back to the ___________! A couple of stories caught my eye the other day and got me to thinking. It happens.

So while I was kind of digging around seeing where I wanted to go with this, I ran across some other interesting things to share with you.

One of the things I was looking at was the number of violent crimes against women. And in the course of looking around for this, I ran across some things I hadn’t realized. For example, all around the world it seems in 2016 there was a wave of acid attacks against women. Acid is thrown onto women. This is in addition to the large rise in the number of sexual assaults against women. Many of them perpetrated by recent “immigrants” or “refugees”. The term used depends on the reporting of the country you are reading about. And terms used are important. For example, the “Judge” that decided the young soldier that shot the pieceful Falestinian that had just stabbed another soldier was not a threat. She stated this clearly by saying the “TERRORIST” was not a threat. Jack Engelhard has some pretty interesting commentary on this.

And what you call a person that perpetrated an attack, back to that bit. Well, in some countries you just don’t. The massive amount of sexual assaults last year in Germany was covered up, by the politicians and the media. It now has it’s own wikipedia page. But then the media and the politicians came to their senses and did the right thing by reporting it. Naw, just kidding. The social media outrage, first of the assaults and then the cover up, was huge, then they couldn’t ignore it. Not so much about protecting women as their image. I mean, what paper wants to be thought of as slimy, or in the same class as the NY Slimes? But at least an explanation was finally found. A helpful prominent muslim imam has this to say. It’s all the women’s fault.

In the wake of the Cologne attacks, a prominent Muslim imam, Sami Abu-Yusuf, told reporters women were to blame because they “dress half naked and wear perfume.”

It’s true, the German papers don’t want to warn women by telling them to look out for “Taharrush gamea”. Not that there is much the women could do about it. In fact, German police won’t tell you who to watch out for, because that would be racist. It’s a top level down policy decision. The police on the street in German said they are used to dealing with drunks around the holidays, but dealing with a mass of men that surround a woman or a few women and assault her? They’re seem to be handling it with the “um, what do we do now?”policy. This policy didn’t seem to work, so the German authorities got more aggressive. They began posting signs in different languages telling the new immigrants it’s not okay to grab a woman’s butt. But where they came from it’s fine. What happened to “respecting other cultures” Germany? The Germans also are having to sort out what to do with the influx of immigrants with child brides. While pedophilia is illegal in Germany, where the immigrants came from it’s not pedophilia. Sort of you say potato, we say potato.

It seemed the Swedish newspapers were very critical of the German newspapers reporting such things. Sweden prides itself of being a feminist supporting state. However, when the reports came out about the assaults on the German women, there was outrage. No, not that the German women had been attacked, but that the newspapers admitted, finally, that it was almost all Merkel’s immigrants who had done it. Then stories of the assaults in Sweden started coming out. Some politicians spoke out against the immigrants and in favor of protecting the women. The National Police Commissioner of Sweden came out and said he was so revolted he vomited. No, not about the women being attacked, but the politician that was speaking out against the immigrants. The rank and file police have said they are afraid to say what is happening.

As a result, immigration cannot be discussed frankly in Sweden. If you mention anything negative about refugees or immigration, you’re accused of playing into the hands of the reviled far-right. As a result, even legitimate concerns are silenced or labelled xenophobic.

And so Sweden has a very different idea of protecting women’s rights, or being a feminist than at least I would.

But the HuffPo has an amazing idea of protecting women’s rights. In a story about violence towards women, and attacks on women it praises Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau because he is such a strong “feminist”. Why? Because he supports funding abortion. Huh? By the same token, President Elect Trump was reviled. Partly because he doesn’t, partly because he said something bad and may have even done it. But in my little mind, there is a massive difference between saying something horribly offensive and throwing acid on a woman, gang raping her or killing her. But to HuffPo, well that’s how it is, that’s what they call respecting women’s rights.

So, when a politician tells you they respect women’s rights? Just be aware that may not mean wheat you think it means.

One possible solution? The wearable alarm. No, it can’t call 911, but it can be programmed to call a friend or family member to come find you, or your body, as the case may be. But to some folks, this is a very empowering tool for women to have and use.

But then there is another class out there. This is the class that finds a President Elect who said something disgusting and may have done something disgusting to be the biggest threat women face. A fate more horrible than, well, something like living in a town with like, NO Starbuck$. And they have come up with a weapon so powerful, it boggles the mind. And they are fixin’ to deploy it. OH NO! Not the knitted, pink “pussy power hats”!!!!

I’m sitting here thinking “you could be marching to object to crimes against women, or against women being legislated into being defenseless and disarmed. You could be marching against high taxes on firearms and ammunition that prevent poor people in bad neighborhoods from being able to afford the tools to defend themselves.” Yes, they could do those things that would empower women, that would help women remain safer in these odd and changing times and places. But they aren’t. In fact, I’d guess most of them are against such things.

Words matter, yes they do. The judge’s words “terrorist” giving away what they know about the man that was shot. Words that are left out of police reports and media coverage that keep citizens unaware of a dangerous phenomena that has begun because to tell the truth is racist. Vile words uttered that can’t be taken back no matter what, they are out there. Words matter, yes they do.

But NOTHING is as powerful as the knitted pink pussy power hat. Oh NO, NOT the pink pussy power hat! I’m sure the pattern is on the website somewhere…..I think I’ll stick to something else pink in a higher caliber. But that’s just me, and I’d like to think I’m a higher caliber kind of gal.

I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions. — Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Q: Do you support the California law allowing judges to confiscate someone’s gun if they are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others?

Q: You’ve talked about wanting to keep the terror watch list but, under current law, individuals on the terror watch list and the no-fly list have been allowed to buy guns and explosives. Are you OK with that?

TRUMP: We have to have a watch list, but we have the laws already on the books as far as Second Amendment for guns, if people are on a watch list or people are sick, this is already covered in the legislation that we already have,

Q: But under current law people on the watch list are allowed to buy guns.

TRUMP: If somebody is on a watch list and an enemy of state and we know it’s an enemy of state, I would keep them away, absolutely. –ABC This Week 2015 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Nov 22, 2015

So the NRA – an organization that is supposedly dedicated to preserving our Second Amendment rights – America’s First Freedom – endorsed a candidate who implied that the NRA is uncompromising and that Republicans are wrong not to bend on at least some restrictions.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who thinks it may be acceptable for a judge to confiscate the property of an individual with some nebulous concept of “mental health problems.”

The NRA endorsed a candidate who believes people placed on a secret no-fly list without due process should be relieved of their right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA endorsed a candidate who has publicly voiced his support for an “assault weapons” ban and who wants a waiting period before anyone is allowed to make a constitutionally protected purchase. Of course, now he claims he no longer supports the ban on those scary black rifles. Just in time to run for President as a Republican.

Congrats, NRA. You’ve endorsed a flip-flopping, tyrannical weasel, who has hoodwinked a plurality of Republicans into supporting him, and you fell right in line with the rest of those who care more about “winning” than they do about the direction this country is taking.

You care more about defeating the evil Hillary than you do about endorsing someone who has zero respect for basic human rights and believes they should be subject to the whims of politicians.